Washington and Lee University
UBA Appeal, 1
A fraternity appealed an IFC ruling related to a "dry rush violation" on the grounds that the fraternity was not provided the opportunity to defend itself against charges, that rules were not effectively clarified by the |IFC and that there are ambiguities in enforcement and interpretation of regulations. Outcome: the University Board of Appeals remanded the case back to the Interfraternity Council in order to observe due process recommending a formal hearing of this case by the Interfraternity Council Judicial Board. Thus the UBA rescinded the IFC finding. The UBA decision was unanimous.
UBA Appeal, 2
A student appealed a decision related to the University Initiatives on Alcohol and Other Drugs and a sanction imposed through an administrative review of an alleged residence hall violation. The University Board of Appeals (UBA) found in favor of the student complainant as there appeared to be ambiguity regarding the events that transpired. With that said, the UBA affirms that the residential life staff person performed his/her duties as expected and that the student and Resident Assistant should now work toward repairing any existing ill-will in the residence hall environment and/or on campus. Thus the UBA found in favor of the student. The UBA decision was unanimous.
UBA Appeal, 3
A student appealed a decision related to the University Initiatives on Alcohol and Other Drugs and a sanction imposed through an administrative review of an alleged residence hall violation. The University Board of Appeals (UBA) found in favor of the student complainant as there appeared to be ambiguity regarding the events that transpired. With that said, the UBA affirms that the residential life staff person performed his/her duties as expected and that the student and Resident Assistant should now work toward repairing any existing ill-will in the residence hall environment and/or on campus. Thus the UBA found in favor of the student. The UBA decision was unanimous.
UBA Appeal, 4
A student appealed a decision related to the University Initiatives on Alcohol and Other Drugs and a sanction imposed through an administrative review of an alleged residence hall violation. The University Board of Appeals (UBA) found in favor of the student complainant as there appeared to be ambiguity regarding the events that transpired. With that said, the UBA affirms that the residential life staff person performed his/her duties as expected and that the student and Resident Assistant should now work toward repairing any existing ill-will in the residence hall environment and/or on campus. Thus the UBA found in favor of the student. The UBA decision was unanimous.
UBA Appeal, 5
A student appealed a decision related to the University Initiatives on Alcohol and Other Drugs and a sanction imposed through an administrative review of an alleged misconduct violation. The University Board of Appeals (UBA) did not find in favor of the student complainant because the UBA believes the minimum sanction, as provided by the University, was fair considering the nature of the misconduct to which the student freely admitted. Thus the UBA found in favor of the University. The UBA decision was unanimous.
UBA Appeal, 6
A student appealed Student Judicial Council (SJC) decisions related to modification of social probation and the issuing of a second strike for conduct related to the University Initiatives on Alcohol and Other Drugs. The University Board of Appeals supported the petition of the student related to modification of social probation. The University Board of Appeals did not support the petition related to the student's request to remove the second strike which was imposed by the SJC. Therefore, the UBA found in favor of one part of the appeal and against a second part of the appeal. The UBA decision was unanimous.
UBA Appeal, 7
A student appealed a Student Judicial Council (SJC) decision related to modification of social probation for a sanction related to the University Initiatives on Alcohol and Other Drugs. The University Board of Appeals supported the petition. Therefore, the UBA found in favor of the student's appeal to modify social probation. The UBA decision was unanimous.
UBA Appeal, 8
The student appealed a Student Judicial Council decision because the student believed the penalty to be too harsh. The University Board of Appeals found in favor of the student and modified social probation to allow participation in on-campus activities where alcohol is not present. Therefore, the UBA found in favor of the student to modify the initial finding. Outcome: ruled in favor of the complainant. The UBA decision was unanimous.
UBA Appeal, 9
The student appealed a Student Judicial Council decision because the student believed the penalty to be too harsh. The University Board of Appeals found in favor of the student and modified social probation to allow participation in on-campus activities where alcohol is not present. Therefore, the UBA found in favor of the student to modify the initial finding. Outcome: ruled in favor of the complainant. The UBA decision was unanimous.
UBA Appeal, 10
The student appealed a Student Judicial Council decision of suspension for a repeat violation of the University Initiatives on Alcohol and Other Drugs. Outcome: ruled against the student and upheld the SJC's suspension. Thus the UBA found in favor of the University. The UBA decision was unanimous.
UBA Appeal, 11
The student appealed a Student Judicial Council sanction requiring completion of community service within a designated period of time. Because the student would be studying abroad during Spring Term, the student requested an extension for completion as the student would be out of the country. Outcome: rules in favor of the student. Thus the UBA found in favor of the student. The UBA decision was unanimous.
UBA Appeal, 12
The student appealed a Student Judicial Council decision of suspension for a repeat violation of the University Initiatives on Alcohol and Other Drugs. Outcome: ruled against the student and upheld the SJC's suspension. Thus the UBA found in favor of the University. The UBA decision was unanimous.